is yashku really a hiphil imperfect? I see no yud or hirik!
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:42 pm
In Gen 29:2
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0129.htm
ב וַיַּ֞רְא וְהִנֵּ֧ה בְאֵ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֗ה וְהִנֵּה־שָׁ֞ם שְׁלֹשָׁ֤ה עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן֙ רֹֽבְצִ֣ים עָלֶ֔יהָ כִּ֚י מִן־הַבְּאֵ֣ר הַהִ֔וא יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים וְהָאֶ֥בֶן גְּדֹלָ֖ה עַל־פִּ֥י הַבְּאֵֽר׃
This page https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/29-2.htm
Identifies Yashku as hiphil imperfect as does the Groves Wheeler Morphology that bibleworks uses. (Groves says @vhi3mp meaning verb, hiphil, imperfect, 3mp).
I can see looking at bibleworks, that the root shin kuf heh, occurs only once in the niphal, once in pual, and the rest (dozens), in the hiphil. And in the hiphil it means "to give to drink". (or I guess to cause to water, / cause to drink), since hiphil is causative.
I know Groves Wheeler doesn't think so and neither does biblehub.com(whatever that's based on), but is it possible though that there might be a Paal form "to drink".
And that this word (yashku) in this verse might be using a paal form, and thus when it says יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים
if we consider if it's saying
A) "the flocks drink".
B) "they/ the (unnamed 3mp subject) waters the flocks" (hiphil)
Is it possible that "A" could be legitimate and it could be a Paal.. ?
Maybe it doesn't fit with the paal imperfect form, though the paal imperfect has so many different patterns, I find it hard to tell sometimes. And it doesn't seem like it fits the hiphil imperfect form either since it has no hirik or yud.
Ralph Zakaria
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0129.htm
ב וַיַּ֞רְא וְהִנֵּ֧ה בְאֵ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֗ה וְהִנֵּה־שָׁ֞ם שְׁלֹשָׁ֤ה עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן֙ רֹֽבְצִ֣ים עָלֶ֔יהָ כִּ֚י מִן־הַבְּאֵ֣ר הַהִ֔וא יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים וְהָאֶ֥בֶן גְּדֹלָ֖ה עַל־פִּ֥י הַבְּאֵֽר׃
This page https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/29-2.htm
Identifies Yashku as hiphil imperfect as does the Groves Wheeler Morphology that bibleworks uses. (Groves says @vhi3mp meaning verb, hiphil, imperfect, 3mp).
I can see looking at bibleworks, that the root shin kuf heh, occurs only once in the niphal, once in pual, and the rest (dozens), in the hiphil. And in the hiphil it means "to give to drink". (or I guess to cause to water, / cause to drink), since hiphil is causative.
I know Groves Wheeler doesn't think so and neither does biblehub.com(whatever that's based on), but is it possible though that there might be a Paal form "to drink".
And that this word (yashku) in this verse might be using a paal form, and thus when it says יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים
if we consider if it's saying
A) "the flocks drink".
B) "they/ the (unnamed 3mp subject) waters the flocks" (hiphil)
Is it possible that "A" could be legitimate and it could be a Paal.. ?
Maybe it doesn't fit with the paal imperfect form, though the paal imperfect has so many different patterns, I find it hard to tell sometimes. And it doesn't seem like it fits the hiphil imperfect form either since it has no hirik or yud.
Ralph Zakaria